3 ms·

"making a mountain out of a molehill" is not a conspiracy. I've noticed a long running trend with people calling something a conspiracy as a means to convenien

by starkd 5y ago

"making a mountain out of a molehill" is not a conspiracy. I've noticed a long running trend with people calling something a conspiracy as a means to conveniently dismiss something they'd rather not bother with. The whistleblower was hired by the company pfizer contracted to do the trials as an auditor. Her very job was to audit the trials to ensure it was being done right. She claims she was fired for bringing it up. You don't see a problem with that? Why do they even have auditors? Dr. Campbell did say it was cheap, because it IS cheap. Why do you assume its something nefarious. He also didn't make any promises that it was a miracle drug, only that read a good study in which it demonstrated SOME efficacy. That can mean thousands of lives saved, if there is no other alternative. I think the number was 62% effectiveness, but i'm not sure. He gave the good and bad. That's the sign of a straight shooter. Someone who treats their viewers like adults that can make up their own mind.

phonypc 5y ago
The whistleblower situation is an issue. It is not substantial cause for concern about the body of data demonstrating vaccine safety/efficacy. If you're interested, here's a thorough breakdown of the situation: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-the-bmj/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-t... There are no good studies on ivermectin indicating anything like 62% effectiveness on any metric. The fact that he would present such a study to his audience indicates he is either: not equipped to interpret the studies, or deliberately spreading misinformation.
- starkd 5y ago
  yeah, I read that response to the BMJ article. I find their dismissal of the concerns to be unconvincing and an unserious attempt to respond. Just the title - "what the heck happened to the BMJ?" - conveys that message. Then they proceed to impugn the character of the reporter and the whistleblower. Using ad hominen attacks and trying to wave it off as "all handwavy stuff" should be a red flag.

by starkd 5y ago

phonypc 5y ago

The whistleblower situation is an issue. It is not substantial cause for concern about the body of data demonstrating vaccine safety/efficacy. If you're interested, here's a thorough breakdown of the situation: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-the-bmj/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-t... There are no good studies on ivermectin indicating anything like 62% effectiveness on any metric. The fact that he would present such a study to his audience indicates he is either: not equipped to interpret the studies, or deliberately spreading misinformation.

starkd 5y ago
yeah, I read that response to the BMJ article. I find their dismissal of the concerns to be unconvincing and an unserious attempt to respond. Just the title - "what the heck happened to the BMJ?" - conveys that message. Then they proceed to impugn the character of the reporter and the whistleblower. Using ad hominen attacks and trying to wave it off as "all handwavy stuff" should be a red flag.